Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
297
CHIEFS, FASHION AND ZEITGEIST: EXCLUSION AS AN EXPENSION STRATEGY IN KINSHIP BASED GROUPS IN THE SOCIETY ISLANDS
Paul Wallin
Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University,
Campus Gotland, Sweden.
Abstract: In this paper I argue that chiefs created the contemporary fashion of ceremonial sites (marae) and that this was a phenomenon that we may call the zeitgeist (spirit of the time) of the Society Islands that extended far beyond the local sphere. This is based on the fact that memory based societies are driven by spontaneous subjective actions, which allow such changes, since only accepted ideas are remembered. A House Society model is explored to explain how certain chiefs successfully dominated larger areas and expressed power through domestic and ritual material remains. Their status position in society made it possible for the chiefs to exclude, as well as to include, others by help of such material expressions as well as by threats of war, through their war god missionaries, the arioi society. Intermarriages between powerful chiefly houses in different islands have been additional important factors to form alliances and create access to land e.g. to legitimize power relations. Ceremonial sites, generally called marae, were the important material expression of this power game. They were the focal points of important decisions in society, and the place where humans met with the gods. They were ritual sites, as well as memorial places tied to genealogies, mythologies and land titles. These monuments went through constant changes since re-building and additions were necessary to keep their functions alive.
INTRODUCTION During the last ten years an intensification of the studies and
excavations of ceremonial sites in the Society Islands has been
undertaken. The monuments and their landscape and social contexts
have been researched by different teams focusing in the Leeward and
Windward Islands respectively (Wallin et al. 2003; Wallin and Solsvik
2010a; Kahn and Kirch 2003; Kahn 2011). These new efforts have
inspired discussion, and new theoretical developments in the
understanding of the monuments can be shaped based on these
investigations.
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
298
The aim of this paper is to uncover how individual power, through
exclusions (as well as by exclusive expressions) managed by tabu
restrictions, was expanding in the Society Islands during the late
prehistoric era and how this was achieved by high chiefs as creators of
fashions, invented at the right moment, catching the zeitgeist or the
spirit of the time (Vinken 2004). This should be understood in the light
of the fact that some chiefs used their genealogical connections and links
to the leading gods, which gave them advantages in this power struggle.
They belonged to certain influential ‘houses’, and these chiefs were
aware of their position and used it in the creation of monuments, as well
as status symbols that were linked to divine status. The house society
model (Levi-Strauss 1987) is useful for explaining how Polynesian
chiefdoms were organized. The ceremonial monuments (marae mainly)
as well as residential houses showed clear distinctions in their shapes
(Wallin and Solsvik 2006a: 53). The marae was a sensitive tool used by
the chiefly houses for fine grained distinctions, which are visible in a
range of small variations in the architecture through time. The
residential features on the other hand had one clear distinction, e.g. that
the round ended houses were chiefly status houses (Green et al. 1967,
fig. 10). The ‘trend setters’ of marae stylistic change seem to have been
the traditional aristocracy at Opoa on the island of Raiatea, since they,
according to local mythology in the Society Islands, had a closer
connection to the gods than other chiefs of the Societies (Henry 1928:
119). This is especially evident when it comes to the establishment of
the war (and fertility) god ‘Oro, which had his original seat at the marae
Taputapuatea at Opoa. Henry mentions that according to traditional
history ‘Oro created a mission school with the seat at Opoa, and the first
master of this school was high chief Tamatoa of Opoa (Danielsson 1956:
166). The Taputapuatea structure was an expression of belonging to the
worship of ‘Oro (Figure 1).
This can be understood as a physical statement of belonging, and
those that did not profess to ‘Oro were excluded from the ceremonial
site. Not professing to ‘Oro could be seen as a provocation that could
lead to war (Handy 1927: 265). These factors were powerful tools in
expansion strategies that emerged from around AD 1600 and continued
into the early European historical contact period. This is based on
genealogies (Henry 1928), and has more recently been demonstrated by
archaeological investigations and dating of late marae structures of
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
299
monumental size (Wallin and Solsvik 2010a, 2010b; Kirch and Kahn
2010).
THE HOUSE SOCIETY MODEL AND FASHION AS FOUNDATIONS FOR STATUS EXPRESSIONS AND EXPANSION The house society model described by Levi-Strauss (1987) reached far
beyond the household as such since it included a metaphor of larger
societal groups including not just the residential group of the house, but
all groups tied to this unit (Fox 1993: 1). Levi-Strauss’s model was
derived from his understanding of how Medieval ‘Noble houses’ were
constituted. Fox writes based on Levi-Strauss 1987 that:
The characteristics of such ‘houses’ were critically defined by: possession of a ‘domain’ consisting of material and immaterial wealth or honours; the extensive use of fictive kinship in alliance and adoption; and the transmission of the ‘domain’ — titles, prerogatives, and wealth — via women as well as men. These characteristics serve to undermine a
Figure 1. Images of the war god ‘Oro (After Kooijman 1964).
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
300
simple reliance on principles of descent and exogamy for the perpetuation of social groups. As Lévi-Strauss (1987) remarks, one purpose in introducing the concept of ‘house’ was to address the weakness afflicting theoretical debates that are ‘haunted by the idea of descent’ (p.165). The ‘house’ can be seen as a forum in which a tension between conflicting principles of descent and alliance, property and residence, exogamy and endogamy are expressed and seemingly resolved (Fox 1993:7).
Using these ideas Levi-Strauss (1987) made a comparative
anthropological study of house societies of the Pacific including the
American North-West Coast, Indonesia, Polynesia, New Zealand,
Melanesia, Micronesia and Madagascar. His purpose was to indicate a
type of social structure in between elementary and complex societies
that he had described earlier (Levi-Strauss 1969). The house society
concept may therefore be used when interpreting stratified chiefdoms,
where ideas on differentiated groups and expressions of power are
visible in the constructions of houses, ceremonial sites and other
material remains. The house society concept has been used in different
ways in Pacific research, for example by Fox (1993), with an
anthropological linguistic view in his edited volume Inside the
Austronesian House and in archaeology by Kirch (2000), Kirch and Green
(2001), Kahn (2005), and Kahn and Kirch (2003, 2013).
The concept of fashion may not have a good reputation, since it often
is tied to flamboyance and the superficial. However, fashion has for a
long time been of importance in sociological studies, albeit investigated
in relation to what fashion appears to represent, which usually has been
tied to issues concerning class and gender (Barthes 1990; Bourdieu
1989; Vebelen 1899). However, fashion may not just be seen as a
representation of such expressions but is also a way to communicate
ideas as well as to execute power (Vinken 2005: 4). It is in this sense
that I will use the fashion concept.
Fashion (as haute couture) in its classical meaning stands for
exclusivity and originality and in some senses it expresses the disguised
or a mixture of desirable features seen in certain relations, for example;
female and male, fertility and war, life and death etc. In such relations
fashion represents a transcendence or exotic difference that also
reduces these disguised relations into pure identity attractive for those
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
301
in power. When such expressions are normalized it is not about identity
anymore, but instead expresses difference or social/individual
distinctions within a (local) group (Vinken 2005: 28). Fashion in itself is
about the actual moment, and can only survive through its own
destruction, and living in a constant eternal promise of new inventions
and expectations (Vinken 2005: 42). It exists in a subjective, self-
evident, uncritical eternal present, within the frames of a living memory
(Norá 1996). Expressed in oral traditions, certain fashions are acted out,
on the marae, their materialized memorial places, and there directed by
the high chiefs and their priests.
The material expression of ‘haute couture’ fashion, as defined above
could develop in certain high status lineages (houses). Changes may
happen when traditional monuments became common expressions (or
when falling into oblivion) within the existing network. At such
‘vulnerable’ moments, the network participants were susceptible for
new strong expressions, and when this occurred, fashion can be
described as the “art of the perfect moment” (Vinken 2005: 42),
sometimes described as zeitgeist.
The house concept as well as fashion is considered useful in the study
of chiefly power relations expressed in the ceremonial sites of the
Society Islands, which ultimately, as mentioned above, were tied back to
the legendary site of marae Taputapuatea at Opoa on the island of
Raiatea. Raiatea was traditionally referred to as Havaiki or the
homeland of East Polynesian culture in early legends (Buck 1938;
Handy 1927). Since the paramount chief (called ari’i rahi) of Opoa was
widely renowned, we may talk about the house of Opoa representing a
strong chiefly household that carried high chiefly titles including control
over large land areas, managed by lesser chiefs (ari’i ri’i). It was through
controlled marriages and/or warring pressures the paramount chiefs
were able to collect the high titles that gave them influential power over
large land areas or in some cases complete islands. An example of this is
seen in the collection of chiefly titles described in Samoan genealogies
(Krämer 1994: 644-647). Henry (1928: 139) mentions that the chiefly
title was tied to the marae that was built on land controlled by its
‘owner’, and since the name of Taputapuatea was spread from Opoa to
Tahiti, Mo’orea etc., it indicates a strong tie back to these chiefs and their
titles and genealogies.
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
302
In the Society Islands it is clearly indicated that power relations were
expressed by material things, such as feather girdles, wooden staffs and
carvings, as well as by architecture both of residential types seen in oval
shaped houses, as well as in the ceremonial sites (Kahn and Kirch 2013;
Wallin and Solsvik 2010a).
In this context I will discuss the ceremonial sites in more detail. The
marae structures were in constant change, although the general outline
was quite fixed. The changes occurred within the outline of an accepted
frame preserved within the collective memory of a gathering place. The
general outline is a demarcated square that has a stone platform called
ahu placed at one side. The courtyard generally has several upright
stones indicating places of participating chiefs, priests and ancestors
(Handy 1927). The arrangement of these features and the facing and
shape of the ahu changed from place to place and in the Society Islands
there were differences among the Leeward and Windward Islands
(Wallin and Solsvik 2010a). I have argued elsewhere that these small
changes are probably due to individual chiefly expressions, however
extensive alterations probably expressed changes in the gods worshiped
at the marae (Wallin 1993, 2001).
The extensive change that occurred at Opoa expressed in the large
marae Taputapuatea can explain the dynamics of the expansion of an
extremely powerful house seated at Opoa. The status/power expression
concentrated to Opoa is seen in the genealogies which are tied to
Tangaroa, the creation god, who according to legends broke through the
sky and placed his right foot at Opoa where the first quite small marae
was built (Handy 1930: 8; Wallin 1993: 108). His left foot was placed on
the other side of the island at Tevaitoa where another marae of the same
kind was built. The senior branch had its main seat at Opoa and junior
branches were probably placed at Tevaitoa, and also spread in other
areas. This legend links the creation of gods to the chiefs of Raiatea, as
well as the creation of the earliest marae structures.
Expansion within an island was tied to senior and junior competition
within the leading houses as mentioned above. Interrelated family
members were tied to different land areas by different chiefly titles and
thereby controlled different parts and districts. The lesser chiefs could
in fact be larger landholders, and therefore also responsible for
producing surpluses for the paramount chief, who could distribute these
as a sign of wealth (Goldman 1970: 184). Connections to different land
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
303
areas were also strengthened through marriages which tied the houses
together.
A broad consensus of the outline of the marae is seen in the Society
Islands. They were structures initially of a size that could be built by
smaller family units/lineages and were dedicated to gods like Tangaroa,
Tane and Rono, gods of creation, the land/woods, the sea etc. As
mentioned above the first marae according to legends were built at
Opoa, and spread throughout the islands from there (Handy 1930: 92).
However, when a concept of a certain marae type is repeated again and
again it will be turned into routine. The once respected meanings lose
their credibility and become more or less meaningless. In such a
situation the high chiefs at Opoa with their cultural capital as the
original centre for the invention of the marae elevated the war god
called ‘Oro as the main god of worship. To do this they also shaped a
new monumental marae expression. They created the grand marae
Taputapuatea (Figure 2) and placed it on the tip of the point at Opoa,
and called it Te Po (darkness). Thereafter this type was erected at
several places in the Leeward Islands after the same fashion (Wallin and
Solsvik 2010: 112), and in the Windward Island the new god was
honoured by stepped ahu structures, with nicely worked round ended
stones, placed on the marae court, and some of them were given the
same name: Taputapuatea (Wallin 1993: 107). These structures could
not be built just by the individual families; they demanded large
Figure 2. Marae Taputapuatea at Opoa (Photo: Paul Wallin).
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
304
amounts of labour to manage the large megalithic blocks or the
preparation of the many rounded stones. In this way the chiefs at Opoa
could continue to exert influence over a large area, since they created
new demands to control the new god. If these expectations were not
followed then there was a threat to be excluded or else conquered by
force. However, by accepting the new god the influences from Opoa
came to dominate thinking, and a new spirit of the time became visible
(Figure 3).
EXCLUSION AND DOMINATION STRATEGIES: WAR AND MARRIAGE When creating something exclusive and powerful the chiefs also create a
desire of something new and powerful, which are signs tied to fashion
(Vinken 2005: 16). In political science questions of exclusion and
domination have been discussed frequently and Danielle Allen argues
that exclusion is a method used to achieve domination (Allen 2004: 30)
among, for example, ethnic groups etc. Domination and control are
concepts closely tied to chiefly systems seen in Polynesia, and were
Figure 3. The stepped marae Mahaiatea (After Wilson 1799).
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
305
carried out usually via tabu regulations or restrictions that excluded
everyone other than the chief himself to act in certain situations, and the
late chiefdom structure of the Society Islands is described as one of the
most stratified ones in the area (Goldman 1970: 170-197).
When the war and fertility god ‘Oro was elevated to be the main god
(Handy 1927: 109) this was partly an act of exclusion of the old gods. It
was also a god clearly disguised and tied to a transformed message. As
such it was strong, exclusive and attractive. The old gods became less
important, which also made the old marae less important or restricted
to certain rituals. According to the myths recorded by the early
missionaries (between c. 1797 - c. 1850), 'Oro was the son of Ta'aroa,
and he lived in heaven together with his wife. The myth continues with
the story that 'Oro killed his wife by pushing her out of heaven.
However, after a while he looked for another wife, this time on earth.
For this purpose he sent his two sisters to search for a wife among the
different Society Islands. On the island of Borabora, west of Raiatea, they
found a beautiful girl, and the two sisters asked her to become the wife
of their brother. Soon 'Oro came down on a rainbow-bridge from heaven
to earth. After a while the two brothers of 'Oro, called Orotetefa and
Urutetefa, also walked down the rainbow to look for him. They found
him together with his new wife and their son Hoatapuiterai. The
brothers also thought his new wife was very beautiful, and started to
look for a nice celebration gift. They searched, but could not find a better
gift than themselves, so they transformed themselves into a pig and a
bunch of red feathers. These attributes thereafter became the symbols
of a new society that 'Oro created, namely the arioi society (Danielsson
1956:166-167). 'Oro selected his members himself, and the first human
representative of the arioi 'missionaries' was the chief Tamatoa of
Raiatea. It was also stated that the members of the society should not
have children or be married, but only carry out singing, dancing, and
religious/fertility rites. 'Oro himself went back to heaven with his wife
and son, and became the ruler of all the arioi (Ellis 1831: Vol I: 230;
Handy 1927: 308).
This myth seems to have been created to give the exclusive power to
the chief Tamatoa in Raiatea to give him (and following chiefs of
Raiatea) continuous and new divine rights directly from the gods. The
story also shows that the power among gods goes from father to son,
and also exclusion by death of his wife, as well as tying new connections
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
306
in new lands, outside heaven, something that also can be indicated by
new intermarriages between the divine chiefs of Raiatea with the more
traditional chiefs of Tahiti (Henry 1928: 129).
The mission of 'Oro was taught at quite organised schools. The
teaching consisted of chanting of prayers, reciting of genealogies etc.
Henry mentions such a school situated at Fare Roi marae at Point Venus
in Tahiti. She wrote: "The sister, Toa-te-manava, was kindly received at
'Uporu (Ha'apape) [Point Venus], where she established a school for the
aristocracy of the motherland, Ra'iatea" (Henry 1928: 130). The
missionaries of ‘Oro were called arioi. The society was a ranked
organization with seven different levels, including both men and
women. The different levels were distinguished by different tattoo signs
placed on different parts of the body (Danielsson 1956: 170). Men of
high social rank occupied the highest positions. In historic sources it is
mentioned that when an arioi group came to visit, ordinary work was
abandoned, and the people prepared themselves for feasting. The
ceremonies that followed were initiated with declamations of creation
myths and important legends. During these prayers generous offerings
to 'Oro were performed. This was followed by more entertaining parts,
like dancing, singing, and performances (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Dancing performance in the Island of Raiatea. Engraving by Hodges from James Cooks second Voyage to the Pacific. Engraving in possession of the author (Photo: Paul Wallin).
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
307
This means that the contacts between the islands were kept through the
arioi who arranged meetings on the different islands, and they arrived
on big canoes (Figure 5).
These meetings involved large groups of people. General meetings could
assemble from hundreds up to several thousand persons (Forster
1777). Such meetings established strong ties between people of the
different islands and in arrangements of marriage. The genealogy of the
Raiatean high chiefs was highly respected and desirable in all of the
Society Islands (Emory n.d.; Oliver 1974, Henry 1928).
High chiefs assigned political power by favouring certain houses in
marriage. The highest status was tied to the chiefs at Opoa, and they
married their daughters to chiefs of Tahiti and other islands. By doing
this, Opoa power was spread to all islands, and the consequences of this
are that the political power of Opoa became not only local, but of inter-
island importance (Henry 1928). Since this power was intimately tied to
the war god 'Oro, it also had a strong religious connection. Power was
Figure 5. War Canoes of Tahiti. Observed on Captain Cooks second voyage 1772-1775 (From Cooke's Geography, 1817).
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
308
tied to wealth that was expressed by domination over land. Land
boundaries were therefore guarded against thieves, who had their own
deity, Hiro, who was the son of ‘Oro, and it has been argued that thievery
can be seen as a warlike act, due to the link between Hiro and ‘Oro. This
is because theft within a district was an assault to the land owner's
honour, which can be compared with a warlike action against an outside
enemy (Goldman 1970: 184). However, wealth in itself was not
important, since a powerful chief was the one who distributed wealth to
his subordinate chiefs and never refused what they asked for (Ellis
1853, Vol. 1: 128). Such economic powers expressed wealth, and gave
internal political and ritual authority to the persons in control (Goldman
1970: 184).
THE MARAE AS A STATEMENT OF EXPANSION FOUNDED IN COLLECTIVE MEMORIES The marae was a memorial place, as well as an active part of a creative
prehistoric societal fundament, based on myths and genealogies. When
looking at the phenomena from an archaeological perspective one can
see that there are clearly different ‘stories’ told by different material
expressions tied to habitus based practices (Bourdieu 1977), and these
narratives have different rhetoric expressions (Hodder 1993).
The French historian Pierre Norá has extensively discussed the
distinctions between memory and history (Norá 2001, 1996). He argues
that memory is oriented towards the spontaneous, subjective and
organic, and history on the other hand is tied to the general, descriptive
facts and institutions. Other concepts of Norá are more directed towards
the discussion of memory itself and its transformation into history, and
here he makes the distinctions of milieux de mémoire and lieux de
mémoire. The first concept exists in traditional societies without
temporal reference but with a predictive, strong, spontaneous memory
of the ancestors, which repeat the tradition and myths in an organic way
(Norá 2001: 366). The second concept is tied to memorial places, which
occur according to Norá, when memory turns into history, in a break
with the past when the memory only can be recreated through place
(Norá 2001: 365).
When memory milieus are broken there is space for new creations
and the establishment of new values, which are a way to keep the
memories alive. Past memories become history preserved in legends
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
309
and myths. Here again we can see the rise of a foundation of a new
memory milieu with new innovations. However, when the East
Polynesians, in this case the Raiatean aristocracy, created monumental
architecture it may have been due to difficulties with the remembrance
of the meaning of the prevailing structure that was created in the past.
Common memories of creation, gods and legends were shared in the
Society Islands and great genealogies were tied to these to express their
importance. In the same way the ceremonial sites were tied to
individual genealogies to give them importance. This entangled web of
associations worked to tie the general to the specific, the myth to
practical expressed realities at the local sites. Existing networks were
used for the dispersal of such new ideas. Using and controlling these
networks made it possible to reach and compete far outside one’s own
island. Central points tied to old traditions seem to be the creation
centres of new fashions in architecture styles. The house of Opoa in
Raiatea and its high status had the power over humans, and the
relations with the gods, to be able to change material expressions. They
were the creators of the intellectual thought that dominated cultural
expression (Montgomery 1832: 126), indicating the “spirit of the time”
sometimes called zeitgeist (Magee 2011: 262).
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF THE FOUNDING OF MARAE AND A LATE EXPANSION During the past ten years new excavations with the intention to date
marae structures have been carried out in two main areas, one
conducted by Paul Wallin in the Maeva district on the Island of Huahine
(Summarized in Wallin and Solsvik 2010b, 2010a, 2005, 2006b), the
other conducted by Jennifer Kahn in the Opunohuu Valley on the Island
of Mo’orea (Kahn 2011, Kirch and Kahn 2003, Kahn and Kirch 2013).
Even though the sample of excavated marae is small, it is clear that
two defined and archaeologically dated phases of marae structures can
be traced both in the Leeward as well as in the Windward Islands
(Wallin and Solsvik 2010b; Kahn 2011). There was an initial marae
building phase around AD1400-1500, that shows smaller structures tied
to family or lineage groups (Wallin and Solsvik 2010b: 88; Kahn 2011:
44) (Figure 6a & 6b). A second phase is indicated by large structures,
built of megalithic limestone slabs in the Leeward Islands, and large
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
310
structures with stepped ahu with worked stones in the Windward
Islands (Figure 6c & 6d).
In Huahine three structures of the large ‘Oro type were dated, marae
Manunu, marae Anini and marae Ohiti Mataroa were dated to the time
frame c. AD 1600-1800.
Figure 6a. Marae Vaiotaha, Maeva Village, Huahine. Lime stone slab ahu (Photo: Paul Wallin).
Figure 6b. Tahitian marae with a platform ahu (Photo: Paul Wallin).
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
311
Figure 6c. Marae Manunu, Maeva Village, Huahine. Lime stone slab ahu of ‘Oro type built in two steps (Photo: Paul Wallin).
Figure 6d. Stepped ahu in Opunohu Valley, Mo’orea. Late monumental type with rounded worked stones (Photo: Paul Wallin).
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
312
A new calibration of an old shell date (Emory and Sinoto 1965) of marae
Taputapuatea gave the date AD 1503-1799, which falls in the same time
frame. In Tahiti a new date from marae Marae Ta’ata, a stepped ahu,
indicated the time frame c. AD 1653-1951 (Wallin and Solsvik
2010a:89). The excavations by Kahn at the inland areas of Opunohuu
Valley also show four marae with stepped ahu or worked stones, which
generally are observed around the coasts in the Windward Islands.
However, these structures were dated to about the same time frame or
c. AD 1620-1760 (Kahn 2011: 40-41).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This paper discusses the relations among chiefs and their control of
wealth, and how they were actively involved in the creation of fashion
giving the trends manifested in the material expressions that can be
seen as zeitgeist eras. These aspects were a fact within the social
structure that was reflected in a society organised within the frames of a
classical house society (Kahn and Kirch 2013). These houses are visible
since it can be shown through archaeology and ethnohistory that they
were in possession of both material and immaterial wealth expressing
the honourable qualities of the chiefs. Another feature present is that
they connected kinship through controlled marriage strategies.
In the Society Islands there was an obvious elite house seated at
Opoa on Raiatea, it was widely known and accepted that they had been
given their superiority and quality through a direct connection to the
gods (Montgomery 1832: 126; Henry 1928) The Opoa paramount chiefs
were not late to use this privilege, and they did it effectively by use of
tabu regulations which made them even more exclusive. With such
methods they controlled material expressions of status. When
recollection is unclear in memory based societies, or when old ideas lose
their significance, new creations/inventions are needed. Such clear
breaks could work extremely effectively since memory based societies
are open for change in a spontaneous way (Norá 1996). However, at the
same time old ideas are turned into mythological histories useful to
secure status tied to genealogies.
Based on archaeological evidence I argue that the genealogical
stories indicated an original creation of small family and lineage marae
which preceded the later large status monuments seen both in the
Leeward as well as in the Windward Islands. Such a scenario has been
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
313
suggested and indicated already by the stories recounted by the
missionaries of the early 19th century. It has been described by Henry
(1928, from a manuscript based on early accounts), by Handy (1927,
1930), as well as by Emory who argued that the late expansion of ‘Oro
from Raiatea happened around AD 1600 according to genealogical
dating (Emory n.d.). Henry (1928: 129), ties this to chief Tamatoa I, who
genealogically should be placed around AD 1450, and ties the late
expansion to Tamatoa II who ruled over all districts of Raiatea (Henry
1928: 248). There is a strange c. 10 generation gap between these two
high chiefs of Opoa. This could be due to the scenario I mentioned above,
placing Tamatoa I earlier in time as a founder, much more ancient than
he actually was. If the time between Tamatoa I and II was shorter,
Tamatoa I could have been the one who established ‘Oro at Raiatea
probably around AD 1600, which actually is suggested by archaeological
dating of the ‘Oro temples (Wallin and Solsvik 2010). To conclude it is
suggested that some general trends are visible in the genealogical dating
of marae foundations and their changes, and that these changes were
probably the actions of powerful chiefs creating the spirit of the time;
the zeitgeist.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First I would like to thank the people of Maeva village in Huahine who
had patience with us when excavating their marae structures, and
special thanks to all of them who aided us in the actual excavations.
Secondly I would like to thank Reidar Solsvik who shared the fieldwork
with me during the Huahine project in the years 2001-2004. I’m also
grateful to Dr. Yoshi Sinoto who invited me to a collaboration project,
and shared his knowledge in the marae of the Maeva site. Last but not
least I would like to thank Helene Martinsson Wallin who invited me to
write this paper about Society Island marae structures, who also shared
my first experiences in the Society Islands in 1985!
REFERENCES Allen, D. 2004. Invisible citizens: Political Exclusion and domination in
Arendt and Ellison. In: M. S. Williams and S. Macedo (eds.), Political Exclusion and Domination. NOMOS:XLVI:29-67.
Barthes, R. 1990. The Fashion System. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
314
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1989. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buck, P. 1938. Vikings of the sunrise. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Co. Cooke, G. A. 1817. Cooke’s Geography. London. Danielsson, B. 1956. Söderhavskärlek. En skildring av polynesiernas
sexualliv och familjeförhållanden. Stockholm: Bonniers. Ellis, W. 1831. Polynesian Researches, Vols I–III. London: London
Missionary Society. Emory, K. P. n.d. Traditional History of Maraes in the Society Islands.
Unpublished manuscript, Honolulu: B.P. Bishop Museum Emory. K. P. 1933. Stone remains in the Society Islands. B. P. B Museum
Bulletin 116. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Emory, K.P. and Y.H. Sinoto 1965. Preliminary Report on the
Archaeological Investigations in Polynesia. Field Work in the Society and Tuamotu Islands, French Polynesia and American Samoa 1962, 1963, 1964. Unpublished Manuscript. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum..
Forster, G. 1777. A Voyage round the World in His Brittanic Majesty’s Sloop, Resolution, Commanded by Captain James Cook, during the Years 1772–1775, Vol. 1. London: B. White et al.
Fox, J.J. 1993. Comparative Perspectives on Austronesian Houses: An Introductory Essay. In: J.J. Fox (ed.), Inside Austronesian Houses. Perspectives on domestic designs for living: 1-29. Canberra: Australian National University ePress.
Green, R.C., Green, K., Rappaport, R.A., Rappaport, A. and J. Davidson 1967. Archaeology on the Island of Mo’orea, French Polynesia. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 51 (2). New York.
Goldman, I. 1970. Ancient Polynesian Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Handy, E.S.C. 1927. Polynesian Religion. B. P. B Museum Bulletin 34. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Handy, E.S.C. 1930. History and culture of the Society Islands. B. P. B Museum Bulletin 79. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Henry, T. 1928. Ancient Tahiti. B. P. B Museum Bulletin 48. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Hodder, I. 1993. The narrative and rhetoric of material culture sequences. World Archaeology. Volume 25. No. 2:268-282.
Kahn, J. 2005. An archaeological survey of the Upper Amehiti Sector, ‘Opunohu Valley, Mo‘orea, Society Islands. In : H. Marchesi (ed.), Bilan de la recherche arch´eologique en Polyn´esie francaise 2003–2004 : 3–40. Punaauia: Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine.
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
315
Kahn, J. 2011. Multi-phase Construction Sequences and Aggregate Site Complexes of the Prehistoric Windward Society Islands (French Polynesia). The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 6: 1, 24-50.
Kahn, J. G. and P. V. Kirch 2003. The ancient ‘House Society’ of the Opunohu Valley, Mo‘orea: Overview of an archaeological project, 2000–2002. In : H.Marchesi (ed.). Bilan de la recherche arch´eologique en Polyn´esie franc¸aise 2001–2002 : 21–36. Punaauia: Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine.
Kahn, J. and P.V. Kirch 2013. Residential Landscapes and House Societies of the Late Prehistoric Society Islands. Journal of Pacific Archaeology. Vol. 4 , No. 1: 50-72.
Kirch, P.V. 2000. Temples as ‘Holy Houses’: The Transformation of Ritual Architecture in Traditional Polynesian Societies. In: R.A. Joyce and S.D. Gillespie (eds.), Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies: 103–114. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Kirch, P.V. and R.C. Green 2001. Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia:Essays in Historical Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kooijman, S. 1964. Ancient Tahitian God-figures. Journal of the Polynesian Society. Vol. 73, No. 2: 110-125.
Krämer, A. 1994. The Samoa Islands: an outline of a monograph with particular consideration of German Samoa. Translated by Theodore Verhaaren. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1987. Anthropology and myth: lectures 1951–1982. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Magee, G.A. 2011. The Hegel Dictionary. Continuum international Publishing Group.
Montgomery, J. (ed.) 1832. Journal of Voyages and Travels by the Rev. Daniel Tyerman and George Bennet, Esq., Deputed from the London Missionary Society, to Visit their Various Stations in the South Sea Islands, China, India, etc., between the Years 1821-1829. Vol. 2. Boston.
Norá, P. 1996. Realms of Memory. Rethinking the French Past. New York: Columbia University Press.
Norá, P. 2001. “Mellan Minne och Historia,” In: S. Sörlin (ed.), Nationens röst—Texter om Nationalismens Teori och Praktik: 363–389. Stockholm: SNS Förlag.
Oliver, D. 1974. Ancient Tahitian Society: Ethnography, 3 Vols, Vol. 1. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Vebelen, T. 1899. The Theory of the Leisure Class – An Economic Study of Institutions. New York: Macmillan.
Vinken, B. 2004. Fashion Zeitgeist. Trends and Cycles in the Fashion System. Berg Publishers.
Wallin, P. 1993. Ceremonial Stone Structures. AUN 18, Acta Archaeologica Upsaliensis. Uppsala University.
Wallin: Studies in Global Archaeology no. 20
316
Wallin, P. 2001. The times they are a-changing...or...Something is happening here. – Some ideas on change in the marae structures on the Society Islands, French Polynesia. In: C.S. Stevenson, G. Lee and F.J Morin (eds.), Pacific 2000. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Easter Island and the Pacific: 239-246. Los Osos: Bearsville Press. Easter Island Foundation.
Wallin, P. and R. Solsvik 2005. Radiocarbon dates from marae structures in the district of Maeva, Huahine, Society Islands. Journal of the Polynesian Society. Vol. 114, No. 4:375-383.
Wallin, P. and R. Solsvik 2006a. Structure, Spatial Metaphores and Landscape: A Study of the Ceremonial Marae Temple Grounds in the Society Islands, French Polynesia. BAR International series 1523: 53-58. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Wallin, P. and R. Solsvik 2006b. Dating ritual structures in Maeva, Huahine. Assessing the development of marae structures in the Leeward Society Islands, French Polynesia. Rapa Nui Journal Vol. 19, Number:1-21.
Wallin, P. and R. Solsvik 2010a. Marae reflections: On the evolution of stratified chiefdoms in the Leeward Society Islands. Archaeology in Oceania 45: 86-93.
Wallin, P. and R. Solsvik 2010b. Archaeological Investigations of Marae Structures in Huahine, Society Islands, French Polynesia. Report and Discussions. BAR International Series 2091. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Wilson, J. 1799. A Missionary Voyage to the South Pacific Ocean, Performed in the Years 1796, 1797, 1798, on the Ship Duff, Commanded by Captain James Wilson Under the Direction of the Missionary Society. London.